In 2014, Crimea, a crucial region of Ukraine, seceded and joined Russia. The issue seemingly originated from Ukraine's pursuit of European Union membership. However, the Ukrainian leadership failed to comprehend that Russia was prepared to annex Crimea under the pretext of their decision. Pro-Russian residents who had resided in Crimea for an extended period were swayed by Russia to such an extent that by the time a vote on the matter took place, it was too late. Russia gained control of Crimea through a democratic voting process.
The notion of a state being acquired within a democratic system may seem implausible, yet it has occurred in the history of specific countries and regions. Democracy, inherently, is a governance system guided by the will of the people and the nation. The idea that a nation willingly surrenders itself to another is contrary to the principles of democracy. State capture can only occur against the will of a nation through the actions of governing bodies, conspirators, and those who betray the national interest. This harsh reality involves the sinister and egregious crime of seizing state control through manipulations within the democratic process.
At times, a state finds itself entangled in intricate problems, paving the way for the potential surrender of the country through democratic means. Conversely, the alternative of preserving the nation's freedom involves forsaking democracy, even if temporarily and certainly not permanently. Both of these options are deemed unacceptable. In such critical situations, decisions must be made wisely and expeditiously. Any slight misstep in this regard can inflict immeasurable and enduring suffering upon the entire nation's destiny — essentially leading to subjugation.
Hence, facing decisions in dire circumstances is not fundamentally novel for the state and its people. The challenge lies in the near equality of the two undesirable options, where one is no less unpleasant than the other. However, succumbing to indecisiveness or opting not to take action constitutes a fatal error. Consequently, even when confronted with the risk of making an incorrect choice, it is imperative to annul the foreseen wrong decision and opt for an alternative course. In such scenarios, a pragmatist grapples with decisions involving two or more unpalatable alternatives. In the practical realm, achieving perfection may be elusive, as what is within reach often represents the best among unfavourable options. Such decisions may not be entirely ideal but are pragmatic choices that prioritise the better over, the worse or, the lesser of two evils, acknowledging the constraints of real-world complexities.
A country's power or potential for prosperity cannot be solely gauged by its geographical size. The historical example of Japan successfully attacking China, which was thirty times its size in the 1930s, illustrates that factors beyond sheer size play a pivotal role. At that time, Japan surpassed China in areas such as morale, national character, leadership qualities, superior military organisation, and social structure. Similarly, smaller entities like Belgium managed to govern territories like the Congo, which was twenty-two times its size, and Britain exerted control over a vast empire across the globe.
Therefore, size alone is not a definitive indicator of a state's significance. However, when a state employs democratic means to occupy another, its agents and proxies can manipulate the perception of the occupied populace, focusing on the apparent smallness of size. This can lead people to believe that survival as a nation and state is impossible in the face of a larger and more formidable state. Such efforts can also instil a sense of cultural inferiority in the occupied nation's psyche, as foreign territories, cities, and institutions become ingrained in the national cultural ideals of the occupying state.
The most severe issue here is what’s done to marginalise the economy of the country to be swallowed as much as possible so that once the people of that country become jealous of the prosperity and economic progress of the occupying country, they start to think that if they merge there, their financial status may be improved.
They do not understand that the difference between one side's prosperity and economic conditions is not the other side's economic development but the result of the other side's economic underdevelopment caused by the conspiracy. The other side becomes more developed and prosperous if the conspiracy is thwarted.
It is inherent in the nature of nations not to relinquish their freedom willingly, and accepting subjugation is nearly impossible without facing severe economic distress. For a larger state to be coerced into such thinking, it often has to navigate through numerous traps. Extreme measures may include disrupting the natural flow of a river, leading to situations akin to genocide. Additionally, strategies might involve the deliberate desertification of agricultural land, destruction of communication networks, and, in certain instances, sabotaging river transport infrastructure. Further efforts may extend to damaging railway lines, demolishing reservoirs, disrupting industries, and compromising electricity sources through sabotage. These methods are employed to create conditions of vulnerability, forcing a nation into contemplating the unthinkable – relinquishing its freedom.
In various ways, the occupying state employs tactics to instil extreme pessimism among the people of the smaller state regarding their own self-preservation, fostering a sense of loyalty to the larger state in terms of culture, and inciting jealousy of the economic progress achieved by the larger state. Subsequently, the people of the smaller state may succumb to a state of psychological distress akin to people with a mental health condition contemplating self-destruction. In this vulnerable state, they might democratically decide to hand over their state to a neighbouring or larger state.
An illustrative historical example of such a situation is the surrender of a beleaguered Austria to Germany in the late 1930s in the face of Nazi Germany. This treaty, signed under duress, exemplifies the impact of psychological manipulation and strategic measures employed by an occupying power to influence the decision-making of a smaller, vulnerable state.
In post-revolutionary and post-overthrow situations, democratically seizing control of a country becomes considerably more feasible. The process does not require an extended period, and if executed effectively, the task can be accomplished almost overnight. A ruling government, mainly if it is both elected and dictatorial, typically boasts a broader and more robust party in terms of reach, organisational strength, and economic foundation than any other political entity. Even after the overthrow of such a government, the substantial and powerful organisational roots often persist in the infrastructure.
Conversely, under the auspices of a new government, other political parties may have an opportunity to enhance the strength of their organisations. However, it is usually challenging for them to rapidly attain a level of stability that can compete with the well-established organisation and might of an incumbent party that has flourished under the active patronage of a longstanding dictatorial government. Exploiting these dynamics, a broker group aligned with the interests of an occupying state can swiftly regain power through democratic means. Once in power, they may or may not resume their brokering activities, as their enduring interests lie in brokerage. Indeed, elected governments sometimes choose to hand over a country to a foreign power against the people's will. This can happen through various means, including subtle involvement in a series of secret treaties, seeking direct peacekeeping troops, or recommending the status of an associate state to a larger nation and facilitating its sale.
The elected Constituent Assembly in Sikkim, an Asian country, chose to surrender the nation to a neighbouring state in 1975. This decision was facilitated by the difficulty in influencing or misleading a populace of a few crores and the near-impossibility of manipulating a parliament consisting of two or three hundred members, especially to secure a majority. The acquisition of a state through democratic means becomes more feasible when the elected representatives of the occupying state exhibit traits such as corruption, lack of patriotism, lack of education, or greed. Through these vulnerabilities, states like Sikkim and Crimea were acquired in what is ostensibly termed a 'democratic' manner.
Ershad Nabil Khan: Activist and Political Analyst